Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/17/2000 SMay 17, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 17, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: NOT PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Ron Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Page I May 17, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order for the second public hearing of the Land Development Code and related amendments. We'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy is absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone is absent. Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a quorum. We will go through the items, but I've received a request to move Item 3.1 t.2, endangered, threatened or listed species protection on Page t28, to move that up to the front. We have some speakers who have a schedule conflict and may not be able to stay till later. Do we have a motion to make that change? COMMISSIONER BRUET: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? Motion by Commissioner Bruet. Second by? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh. All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: That agenda item -- Ron, do you have an outline on how we're going to proceed? I think in a -- MR. NINO: My suggestion, Mr. Chairman -- Ron Nino, for the record. My suggestion is that we not go through the items that are on your agenda as we did in the first meeting, that we deal -- zero in with those for which you individually in your private study have cause for concern, and those items that are specifically called forward by members of the audience. So as you pointed out, there's a need to discuss the gopher tortoise protection Page 2 May 17, 2000 ordinance, and we can start off with that item. There have been a number of changes -- I believe you have revised copies in front of you -- resulting from staff dialogue with members of the general public. And I'm going to have Barbara Burgeson come up and specifically address those changes with you. MS. BURGESON.' For the record, Barbara Burgeson, with planning services. In front of each of the commissioners I've put the copy in -- there's a yellow highlighted copy, which was a culmination of discussions with some of the environmental groups, as I was directed to do two weeks ago. And that copy was sent out to several -- actually all of the environmental consultants that the original language was sent out to for their comments. The package underneath that with the red highlights identifies those items that are more substantive, and that I felt should be brought to your attention, and that we would probably want to consider to start discussions on immediately after this cycle, but bring forward to you at the next LDC cycle. So I'm not sure that you want to really get into those items that are in red tonight. Maybe we'd just get into the first package which addresses those items that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I agree completely. They're intended for the next cycle, so we'll see them in due time. MS. BURGESON: I think the easiest way to do this is just to go through each of these changes with you. On Page 2, the changes in yellow really only identify a more accurate way of listing the agencies that I have written in my original language. So that there's absolutely no substantive change to that, just a corrective language change. The same under-- in the next paragraph, where I've added endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern, and taking out or status, because there is no identification of that source. On Page 3, we've added some language to state that we should be concerned with relocation; not just of species of special concern, but of endangered and threatened species as well. So that language was put in there. And the only change that that next sentence identifies is rather than saying that the county may consider Page 3 May 17', 2000 recommendations, we're saying that we shall consider them and may utilize them. So it's putting the onus on us to at least get those recommendations, if possible, to consider them, and then it's up to us whether we utilize them or not. Because sometimes we find that the recommendations from the state or federal agencies are a little bit onerous on the projects that we're reviewing. So we still want to have that ability by putting the word may in there to utilize them or not to. But we're putting in shall so that it's an obligation that we at least consider them. And then the last sentence there also just adds endangered, threatened species and species of special concern. Under 3.11.3.4, all gopher tortoises, we added, "Their habitats and associated commensals." Their habitats was later in the ordinance, but just to address it more clearly, we put that up front here. Associated commensals is something that the Environmental Advisory Council has always asked us to make sure that when we're excavating gopher tortoise burrows, that the associated commensals, which live in the burrows are also relocated. This was just something that I forgot to put in. I know it's something that that board would like to see in here. And then what we did is changed the description of take, which was what was in the original language, and replaced it with the word take and in parenthesis after that described what that meant. Again, using take in the next paragraph. And one of the things that I've identified in the red sheet for you is that this will describe it in this amendment, but in the next amendment cycle, we're going to put that in as a definition in the definition section in the back, to make sure that that's easily identified. The next page, on Page 4, we added a few things. One, under suitable habitat, we added the description that typically suitable habitat has the presence of existing gopher tortoise population. It was just something that seemed obvious. It didn't get put in, but it probably should be. And then we pulled the language out -- we had the density listed under suitable habitat, but density really doesn't describe habitat, so we thought it should be pulled out of the habitat Page 4 May 17, 2000 description and just be identified separately, so that's why it came out of 5, and you see it on No. 6 there that's highlighted on the bottom of Page 4. And that just says, "When relocating tortoises on-site, the density shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and no more than five tortoises per acre." Which is the same number that we had in the original language. One of the items on the red sheet is to consider discussions, at least have discussions on that density and whether that might be reduced. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is Item 6 on the next page a continuation of the same section, or is that another section with a duplicate number? MS. BURGESON: No, I need to change the numbers on that. So 6 on the next page becomes 7, 7, 8, and 8, 9. And then the only change we had in the penalty section was putting the word taking in, which describes the description that we had in there before, just replacing it with one word. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. BURGESON: And these -- these changes were sent -- or were worked out with Florida Wildlife Federation, representatives of The Conservancy, there were copies sent out to Audubon and copies sent out to environmental consulting firms. We received -- or I received responses back that were positive from all firms except that there were some concerns from the staff members from Wilson-Miller. So I believe there's -- Tim Durham is here to discuss concerns on the language. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I've got -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- one quick question for Barbara. On Page 4, paragraph 5, the portion that you've added, "The presence of an existing gopher tortoise population," does the land have to meet all four requirements before you consider it? Or one? Or that's a judgment call? MS. BURGESON: That would -- well -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: You can have good habitat and just perhaps not have a gopher there. MS. BURGESON: Right. Well, this -- that's true. So if we're describing habitat, then maybe what I should say is typically the presence of an existing gopher tortoise population. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, I mean, that's -- you know, Page 5 May t7, 2000 vegetation is one thing, the soils are another thing, but whether there's another gopher there or not is -- we can make an adjustment there? MS. BURGESON: Definitely. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Any other questions of staff? If not, Ron, do we have some -- MR. NINO: Yeah, we have one registered speaker. Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, my name is Nicole Ryan, and I'm the environmental policy specialist for The Conservancy. First off, I would like to acknowledge the county staff's efforts in strengthening the gopher tortoise ordinance. I think that they really listened to the input from all the different sides, and they really tried to incorporate language that has addressed everyone's concerns. The Conservancy generally does support the proposed LDC amendments dealing with gopher tortoise protection. For example, the language of not only protecting gopher tortoises, but commensals and their habitat is something that's crucial. I think everyone knows, if you only protect tortoises but not the habitat, you really haven't protected the tortoises. We also understand that these are interim amendments and that additional tortoise protection may be written in the near future. Therefore, we do support the adoption of the current gopher tortoise language, with additional changes in the next round of LDC amendments. There are two areas where The Conservancy would like to see the proposed gopher tortoise ordinance strengthened. First is in Section 3.11.3.4, Subsection 5. And this lists the conditions where off-site relocation will be allowed. The Conservancy believes that this needs to be tightened to only allow off-site relocation, if preservation on-site would likely result in a takings lawsuit under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, or Section 5 of the Tenth Article of the Florida Constitution. And we've taken this position for several reasons: First of all, relocation is very stressful on the animals, so it should be used only as a last resort. Secondly, relocation can cause a spread of the tortoise upper respiratory tract disease. Third Page 6 May 17, 2000 reason is that gopher tortoises that are placed in areas where there's already a tortoise social structure sometimes have problems integrating into that tortoise society. That can cause stress, which can sometimes make the upper respiratory tract disease, the onset of it, easier. And I guess most importantly, if you relocate the gopher tortoise, then the other potential 360 species that use the tortoise burrows are lost. Indigo snakes, gopher frogs, furrowing owls, all of these species do use tortoise burrows. Now, there are concerns over where off-site relocation can occur. And that's an important subject. With only about one to two percent of our xeric scrub habitat left and upland areas being developed quickly, the places for gopher tortoise relocation are important. There are still some tracts of land -- of upland outside of Immokalee, and this is an area where The Conservancy would like to work with county staff, other environmental groups and environmental consultants to find a good place for a potential off-site gopher relocation, kind of a gopher tortoise sanctuary. The second area where The Conservancy would like to see stronger language in the gopher tortoise ordinance deals with single-family homes. In Section 3.11.3.4, Subsection 7, the responsibility for finding and protecting gopher tortoises on the single-family lots falls to the landowner. It says that they'll be given a set of guidelines to follow. But our position is that Collier County must take a more active role in educating and enforcing gopher tortoise protection, especially on these single-family lots. Currently the county doesn't have sufficient staff to conduct the site assessments on the single-family parcels. This leaves the individual home builder responsible for locating, protecting and preserving gopher tortoises. We think that a Collier County full-time equivalent staff person should be hired or placed to conduct site assessments and enforce the current or future gopher tortoise ordinances. The staff person might be able to be beneficial in locating other listed species in addition. And also, homeowners really need to be educated on how to preserve gopher tortoises and why it's important. To tell them to preserve it is one thing. But to make them really understand why Page 7 May 17, 2000 it's important I think is crucial. So those are the two major areas where The Conservancy would like to see some changes made. But in order to get interim standards in place, we do support what the county has proposed this evening. And I will hand out -- this is a draft copy of our gopher tortoise protection position statement. It goes into detail on some of the things that I have alluded to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question. MS. RYAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You mentioned that there are 360 species that are considered as associated commensals? MS. RYAN: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are we creating a headache to try to -- I don't think I understand how you would relocate all of those, if we're really talking about relocating. MS. RYAN: Well, that -- I mean, yeah, that's the problem. Those wouldn't be relocated. So when you relocate a lot of tortoises, then the commensals are lost, oftentimes. And so that's why you really prefer the on-site preservation, because if they're preserved on-site, then there's a better chance that those birds may not be disturbed. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And if we're going to include it in 3.11.3.4 where we added this "their habitats and the associated commensals are hereby protected," what are we creating? MS. BURGESON: What we're requiring is that any that are identified within the burrow at the time that the burrow is excavated and the tortoises are relocated are relocated as well. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Does it say something that -- MS. BURGESON: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- somewhere? MS. BURGESON: But I can add that language in there to clarify that. It's my understanding that a lot of the commensals that are associated with those burrows are not in them at the time that the tortoises are relocated, and that would be why the concern for The Conservancy's side, that you may lose those if the habitat and the burrows are lost. Page 8 May 17, 2000 But we're not asking for them to be collected from the habitat and relocated at the time. We're just saying those that are associated with the burrows themselves at the time the tortoises are relocated. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And associated with the burrow means they're in the burrow? MS. BURGESON: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's a fascinating concept. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Another speaker, Ron? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I picked up tonight Barbara's two documents, which I think you have in front of you, the yellow and the red document. We support both of these. And we appreciate staff meeting with us and others during the two-week time period. And we were able to come to an agreement that there's some immediate changes that are in the yellow document that we're very comfortable with, based on the fact that those documents that are in the red, we're going to be discussing it during the next cycle and addressing them and seeking more information. And the two items that Ms. Ryan mentioned are two items in this document, the red document, that are on the list to be addressed, as well as a number of other issues that Florida Wildlife had brought up in the documents we distributed two weeks ago. We also would like to participate actively in the county's meetings and efforts to locate a gopher tortoise park. And we offer our services, and eagerly want to become involved in this. And we think that that's a very important component of this gopher tortoise protection effort. Therefore, I urge you to support staff recommendations tonight, and encourage the county commissioners to also embrace them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. NINO: Tim? MR. DURHAM: Caught me by surprise. I still have my gum in my mouth, so I have to talk slow. For the record, my name is Tim Durham, director of environmental services with Wilson-Miller. And I provided comments to the EAC as well. County staff Page 9 May t7~ 2000 has been very helpful providing us copies of the language. We have reviewed it. A couple of comments I do want to make. I just want to make sure everybody is real clear on the fact that long-term survival of gopher tortoises is different than the short-term survival. Yes, we can move smaller populations, five, 10, 15, 20 tortoises around on great little preserves for them here and there. The biology of tortoises indicates, though, that if you have a population of less than 50, that your genetics basically create a problem. You get inbreeding over time and eventually that population will die out from inbreeding. So the state issues take permits, typically for populations of less than 50. There have been quite a few of those issued down here, because most of our remaining habitat for tortoises are fairly fragmented. We have relatively small populations of tortoises in Collier County, compared to many other counties. So I want to make sure everybody's clear that preserving smaller preserves for tortoises is not a long-term solution for the gopher tortoise population. In that regard, I'm here to advocate some intense and serious consideration of an off-site regional mitigation park for tortoises. In some ways the timing is such, I almost feel like this ordinance is kind of the cart in front of the horse. A lot of the ordinance you're looking at is predicated on there being an off-site option available. There's not one clearly available right now. I had some discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Commission last week. They would be in favor of some efforts to establish one. There is money available in a trust fund. All the take permits you hear about being applied for, there's a fee charged for those. That money goes into this trust fund, and those funds are available. Collier County needs to avail itself of those funds to establish a regional park. My personal vision of a regional park is let's find some good habitat, possibly unoccupied habitat, but let's set up a program to get a meaningful size site. I'm thinking 250 acres or better, maybe even substantially more. But let's have an upland habitat park that you can move gopher tortoises into, have a meaningful population that will be there for generations, not just for five, 10 or t 5 years. Page10 May 17, 2000 And again, the way the ordinance is currently set up, I think with an off-site mitigation option there, I think it's a good ordinance. I would support that ordinance, if we can get an off-site mitigation option encouraged. You know, ideally I'd like to see that option set up first and then this ordinance go through. I have concerns that some people, in the absence of an off-site option, may end up having to put conservation easements on a one and a half acre piece of property on the site set up to take care of gopher tortoises. Five, 10 years there's no gopher tortoises left and we have this piece of property that may not be doing the function that it really could be doing. That same resource could have been put into that regional park. I think I'll just conclude with that. Thank you for your attention. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you say 250 acres was your optimal size? MR. DURHAM: No, I wouldn't even say optimal. I'm just saying off the top of my head. I'm just sharing my vision, you know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just didn't understand whether you said 50 or 250. MR. DURHAM: No, I said 250, and that's off the top of my head. Again, I'm just trying to convey the information. I'm not picturing this tiny little piece over here that we have a token preserve for tortoises, but something we have a meaningful size tO. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. DURHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. No questions. Next speaker, please. COMMISSIONER BRUET: One comment, maybe to Barbara. It would seem to me that if the State of Florida -- if Fish and Wildlife -- Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, in their take permits, does have funds set aside for a regional type mitigation bank. Had not the efforts of the environmental community and the county ought to be pushing the State of Florida to move forward, as opposed to putting the burden on the county? Staff-wise and financially, that's -- MS. BURGESON: I don't think that the intention here is that Page 11 May 17~ 2000 the county have the burden of finding that park and paying for it; that we work with those funds that are available. And I've had discussions with Jim Beaver in terms of trying to get that put together. Also I've had some correspondence with Ed Carlson, who was on the EAC and with Corkscrew regarding some properties around Corkscrew-- MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Excuse me, could you speak up? We can't hear you. MR. NINO: Speak into the mike. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. It's not the intention of the county necessarily to have the county or the residents of the county fund a mitigation park for gopher tortoises, but to pursue the funding that's already in place and available with the state and try to work with them in terms of finding that property and purchasing it. Also, there may be some options through discussions with Ed Carlson with Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary for parcels of land surrounding their wetland area that according to Ed are excellent upland habitats for gopher tortoises that are currently unoccupied. So I think that working with the consultants, working with the wildlife organizations and working with the state, we should be able to make some really strong steps forward in trying to obtain that land. And hopefully, if this ordinance can go through, that will give us that extra pull with the state that it's really important, we need to do it. COMMISSIONER BRUET.' It would seem like the time has come, and certainly those collaborative efforts will be best put. MS. BURGESON: I agree. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other questions or comments? Next speaker, please. MR. NINO: I don't have any speaker slips. Does anybody else -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward and state your name for the record. MS. BOGGS: Very briefly. My name is Susan Boggs with Collier County Audubon Society. We're here to support the staff's changes to the gopher tortoise ordinance, with the understanding that unresolved issues will be addressed during the next LDC cycle. And the Page12 May 17, 2000 Audubon Society would like to participate in meetings to identify a gopher tortoise park. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Thank you. Any other speakers? There's none registered, none indicating. On this item, now, Ron, procedurally, do we need to take votes on them as we go, or how do we properly transmit this, as we consider each in turn? MR. NINO: You can vote on them individually or collectively at the end of your meeting. Just keep tabs of those that you haven't fully resolved in your mind. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think this one deserves a specific motion, because it's got some particular issues. And just in summary comments, I know there was a request for some changes to this, which were pointed out that they are already in the language for the next cycle. I'm reluctant to include anything that's already been identified as being in the next cycle. That's what the next cycle is for. Then EDC and everyone will have a chance to have input. And I think we should not make those kind of changes at this time. But I think it would be worthwhile that at least in our recommendations to County Commission that they be encouraged to -- staff be encouraged to pursue a gopher tortoise regional mitigation park as part of this Land Development Code amendment process. And I think good evidence has been made that such a park would be essential to a decent code amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you clarify how the Land Development Code changes would make a park something we'd pursue? I'm not clear on that. MR. NINO: We would have to do that verbally at the public hearing process. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, I think what we can do from Planning Commission is just endorse the testimony that we've received and pass on a recommendation that County Commissioners also react favorably and direct staff to pursue the state funds and due process. I don't think at this time we can get specific requirements in the language. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those are my thoughts. Page 13 May '17, 2000 Do we have any other comments or a motion on this particular LDC section change? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we follow through with the chairman's recommendation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that that includes inserting typically on Page 4 about the presence of the existing gopher tortoise -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- population. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think that was a comment by Mr. Bruet to '' COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, Mr. Bruet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- that Ms. Burgeson indicated would be acceptable. MS. BURGESON: I think that you were talking about the -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Number 4, the presence of an existing gopher tortoise population -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Under section 5, No. 4. MS. BURGESON: Right. I have the word typically in front of -- right after 4. And also, as a better description, on the page before that, on 3, I've added -- after commensals, in parenthesis I've added, "Those occupying the burrows at the time tortoises are located." COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet, those were included in your motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, so we have a motion and second on the floor to transmit with a recommendation for County Commission approval. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will send it on. Now we will fall back into the regular agenda. MR. NINO: Go back to our -- back to the beginning. I believe the first item that needs some public discussion, because there Page 14 May 17, 2000 is, I believe, a member of the audience here that wants to talk about Section 2.2.15.4.3. That's the section that establishes a greater setback for 100-foot buildings in the C-4 district and in the RT zoning district than is currently in place. And secondly, establishes a floor area ratio for hotels and motels versus the current stipulation or requirement of 26 units per acre. And you recall at the last meeting, we had indicated that going into that discussion we had recommended a floor area ratio of .045, and that at the last -- your first meeting, after studying a number -- after studying all of the most recent hotel construction in the county, we determined that that ratio would -- was inadequate. As a matter of fact, it wasn't as high as the ratio of those that were recently currently constructed. So we recommended a .6 f.a.r., floor area ratio. And that is the number that appears in the material that's before you. And I believe Mr. Varnadoe wants to speak to that issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? Then we will hear from Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, George Varnadoe, law firm of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson. I need to go back to the genesis. And the genesis of looking at this was the -- as usual, a project that someone didn't like, and that was the proposed tower on Vanderbilt Beach Road that's approximate to U.S. 41, which has very little setback from the road. And it's in a C-4 district, which allows 100 feet. And in looking at that, I think the staff has looked at what other zoning districts allow 100 feet in height, and that's the RT district, residential tourist. Since the City of Marco has become a city, the only RT zoning that I know of is along Vanderbilt Beach. And for those of you who are familiar with Vanderbilt Beach, those lots are typically both the bay side and the Gulf side, fairly shallow in depth, front to back. Without -- my guess is that most of those are less than 150 feet on the bay side, and something in excess of that on the Gulf side, but not usable because of your CCCL setback lines. I think what we're doing by imposing the greater setbacks on the RT district, as opposed to leaving it in the C-4 district, is making that area which is not totally built out 99 percent built Page 15 May t7, 2000 out, nonconforming and causing those people, in the event of a hurricane or to then seek a variance before they can rebuild exactly where the building is now, are discouraging redevelopment in those areas. Because to redevelop, tear the old building down, you would then have to move it back and it's going to be -- they're very shallow in depth. So I would ask your consideration to let's go back and address the problem we were asked to consider, and that was the C-4 zoning district, some increased setbacks. That's Item No. 1. Item No. 2, as far as the floor area ratio, I think Ron and I have had some discussions about both of these, and I think that we are both in kind of agreement about this. On the floor area ratio for hotels, we have what I'll call the business hotels: The Hampton Inns, the Marriott Residence Inn, hotels of that type which typically don't have amenities. They don't have meeting rooms, they don't have lounges, they don't have workout rooms, they don't have restaurants, they don't have spas, they're not resort hotels. They're for the traveller who's there typically one, two, three nights and they're gone. And I think the f.a.r. that Ron's suggesting is totally appropriate for that kind of use, but I don't think it fits resort hotels. Those that provide spas, tennis courts, those that are extended stay hotels, or seek the convention business, those typically do have a lot of square footage which is not devoted to hotel rooms. It's devoted to meeting rooms, conference rooms, lounges, restaurants, spas, other amenities. And I think we're trying to put all our different kind of apples and oranges in the same basket, and it doesn't work. And I would suggest to you that we need a separate or different f.a.r. for those kinds of uses. And I think Mr. Nino has been working on that. I just wanted to tell you what I thought the practical difficulties what we're trying to do. And as usual, sometimes when we start to look at these things, we carry it beyond the immediate problem without understanding the consequences of what we're doing. So I know that all of you are practical, as I am, and I think we need to be very careful that we don't do things we really don't get -- the doctrine of unintended consequences I think here is very much in play. I'd be glad to try to answer any questions, or I'll tell Mr. Nino Page16 May 17, 2000 to talk about specific language changes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions or comments for Mr. Varnadoe? MR. NINO: If I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, we did take under review the issues that were raised and they were raised a couple of weeks ago. And I did confirm the conclusions with Mr. Mulhere, the planning services director, and we agree that in retrospect we probably erred in introducing the greater setback to Gulfshore Drive. I mean, that's a developed community. And indeed, most of those buildings would be made nonconforming. So we agree that it was probably inappropriate to have made that recommendation for increased setback, and we suggest that it be deleted as it applies to the RT zoning district. With respect to the matter of density, again, we agree that a destination resort hotel, i.e., like the Ritz and The Registry and the La Playa, are really functioning substantially different than your Hampton Inns and your Holiday Inns and your Howard Johnsons, and that a higher floor area ratio is justified in that context. And we came to the conclusion that the .8 floor area ratio would address that problem -- would address that difference from .6 to .8. It would take care of those enhanced amenities that are normally associated, and meeting rooms and -- that are associated with destination resort hotels. But to make sure that we were zeroing in on a special type of hotel, we found it necessary to develop a new definition, a definition for destination resort hotel, and I'm going to hand that out to you. And staff's recommendation is that we do indeed change the document to reflect the introduction of the definition. What we would do is on Page 6, for example, under 2.2.15.4.7 where it says, "The maximum floor area ratio for hotels and motels shall not exceed a factor of 0.60." And then we would add, "Except for destination resort hotels, as defined in Article 6.3, where the factor may be 0.8." And that would be reflected in repetitive sections of the RT ordinance. And that is our recommendation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any questions or comments? MR. NINO: Any other speakers on that? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is the -- the .8, is that something Page 17 May 17, 2000 the industry can accept, Ron? I mean -- MR. NINO: Yes, I believe they can. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other speakers on this issue? There being none, we will take action on this particular one. Do we have a motion to incorporate the recommended changes? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a good one. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Don't ask me to repeat it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NINO: The next section deals with the business park PUD district. Apparently staff -- you know, staff is satisfied with the product that it has before you, but I believe Mr. Varnadoe has a problem and he wants to talk to you about it. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: What page is that? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next one, Page 8. MR. VARNADOE: This starts on Page 8, I think. At least in my version. Again, for the record, George Varnadoe. Same law firm as it was a minute ago. The -- this is a district that's near and dear to my heart. As all of you remember, we went in and did Creekside Commerce Park, probably four years ago now, and tried to get an amalgamation of some industrial, light industrial uses with some more business type uses. And if you look around the county, we have these industrial parks which are industrial, and then you have people in there which aren't industrial, but it's a place they can afford to have their business. We have -- our business zoning districts turn out to be more Class A office space, which is higher rent district. And these business parks I think fill a really good niche of combining light industrial with more intense business uses, which don't need to be on arterial roads or collector roads, and can be internal to these kinds of parks. Page18 May '17, 2000 We then did a comp. plan change, which had a definition of business parks and had some limitations on the amount of commercial. The concern that staff had was that they might turn into retail commercial, so they put a 30 percent limitation on the overall park on what could be commercial. Here what we're doing is taking permitted primary uses and saying your whole park could be designated this, and then we go to the permitted secondary uses and say no more than 30 percent of your park can be dedicated to these kinds of uses. I think that's all very appropriate. It follows our comp. plan as to what we're supposed to be doing. But I have a couple of small but I think very important points to make. If you look at the top of Page 9 -- I will try not to go through what all those numbers are, but Item 3 we're deleting, for reasons that are unknown to me, building construction. So what we're saying, that if you're a general contractor, residential contractor or any other kind of contractor, you cannot have your office in these business parks. It seems to me that's a very appropriate use. Oftentimes, as I'm sure Mr. Budd can tell you, they have equipment in storage. They do. It seems to me this is the kind of activity we should be fostering in these business parks, not saying it's not allowed. So I would recommend that we leave that in. And my second change is over on Page 12, at the carry-over paragraph on the top of the page, No. 3. And now we're talking about permitted secondary uses accessory to a primary use. And again, this was -- comes out of my work with EDC and in particular the Creekside Commerce Park. We are changing from 20 to 10 percent the gross floor area of the permitted principal use, which can be devoted to retail sales. I know that all of you are well aware of the county uses we have on Trade Center Way where -- and I'll just pick an example. You have a kitchen cabinet fabricator or supplier and he'll have a showroom up front, then he has all the -- what he has in stock and what he orders in the back, and all his guys that put them together and go out and install them. And you can pick tile, you can pick carpet, you can -- cabinets. There's a myriad of uses. Again, I think that this is the kind of use that we should be encouraging in business parks. Page 19 May 17, 2000 And I'll tell you that we fought like the dickens to get 20 percent of the retail sales to be the factor in Creekside, based on what Susan Paragus and EDC found out from Canmus (phonetic) and the industry, that 10 percent just doesn't hack it. And there's nothing in our comp. plan that requires this change. I don't know why we're making it. I know that David Weeks is the proponent and he's not here. But I will tell that you that these weren't pulled out of the air to start with, and I think that we should leave it alone. We keep looking to attract light industry and business to our community, and then we start monkeying with our LDC's in a way that discourages it, not encourages it. And that's all on the premise that you think these kind of uses ought to be in a business park, as I do. But if you do, I would encourage you to leave these general contractors and residential and commercial contractors in. And I'd also urge you to leave the 20 percent of the gross floor area in. And that's that mixed use where your principal use is one of the allowed uses, and what he has as part of his facility is a retail use. And I tried to give you an example, and it may not be the best one, it could be a lighting contractor, it could be a guy that does bathrooms where he has the displays of his sinks and his shower stalls and all that up front. In the back he's got his equipment. And what we found out through EDC is that 10 percent of that just doesn't give him enough display or sales area. And so I would urge you to leave it at 20 percent. Thank you. MR. NINO: Mr. Ghairman, let me speak to that. Because I just realized, as a matter of fact, within the last few minutes, that the 20 percent rule applies generally in all of our industrial districts. So therefore, I'm at a loss to determine how we suggested a 10 percent limitation in a development that is supposed to be a mixture of commercial and industrial. So I have to tell you that I'm somewhat embarrassed, but we agree that the 20 percent should stay. With respect to the contractor's license -- the contractor's building construction groups, this issue has come up from time to time. The problem here -- the problem we have is with the SIC Code, because the SIC Code, this is -- when we talk about building construction group, we're talking about the group that Page 20 May t7, 2000 has cement mixers and all kinds of heavy equipment as a part of that -- the contractor's yard. And I would be the first to agree that if we're just talking about the office component of a construction company, that we shouldn't have any problem with that. The problem we have is the SIC Code doesn't distinguish between the traditional contractor's yard and office and purely the office components. So we -- MR. VARNADOE: Well, then why don't we put those in there and just accept storage of heavy equipment or something, but don't just throw out the baby with the bath water. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. MR. NINO.' We agree with that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Good recommendation. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other speakers on this item? Any other comments, questions? Do we have a motion to accept this item with the changes proposed by Mr. Varnadoe and endorsed by Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER BRUET: So moved, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there are any other issues, except one, but it's a long way down the list. And if there's anybody here that wants to address an issue, including yourself, that precedes the issue with respect to the appropriate overhang for parking stations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Varnadoe has one. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We're so used to him coming up here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I thought he said I do. Never mind. No, Ron, go right ahead. MR. NINO: There are two folks here representing the communications tower people. And there's the airport people, Page 21 May 17, 2000 Mr. Ted $oliday, the director and Lisa LeBlan¢. If you don't have any -- if you're not going to have a problem with the airport overlay district and the communications tower ouerlay district, it would be nice if you would say so, so they can decide if they want to go home, they can ~jo home. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have no comments or issues on either of those. Does anyone on the Planning Commission have an issue? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Very quickly, on the -- our old favorite docking facilities, we're changing -- talk to us just a little bit about how that change affects the way we govern today on the -- MR. NINO: It's going to eliminate some of the petitions that come before you. Administratiuely we'll be able to deal with the docks, that they don't increase -- they don't exceed a percentage of the channel width. We will be able to do -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Administratively. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we don't need to hear that? COMMISSIONER BRUET: No, I just wanted a quick -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address either the cellular tower or airport ouerlay issue? There being none, no one from Planning Commission has an issue? We will not be debating them. We're quite happy with them. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you. MR. NINO: And we'll go to Item 2.6.7.1.1, Page 87. You'll recall the way this comes about is -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Sorry, Ron, what page are we talking about? MR. NINO: Page 87 -- no, I'm sorry, Page 69. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: PaGe 69. Summary pages weren't changed. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: This is where they had the problems with my pickup? MR. NINO: In the last amendment cycle, we eliminated the compact car -- the ability for compact car spaces, and we increased the greater overhang provision to protect the integrity of sidewalks and green belt. The DSAC said no, no, we don't want to do that, we want to go back to the way it was originally. Staff takes a position that we don't support that, and we'd like Page 22 May 17, 2000 the current regulation to remain as it is. Mr. Chrzanowski is a particular advocate of that. Jeff it. And Mr. Purse is in an adversarial position, and the two want to go at CHAIRMAN BUDD: Bring them on. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Can we watch, please? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Chrzanowski. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, gentlemen. Maybe I should get one of the mobile speakers. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You want to try that again, Start? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Hello. Oh, gentlemen and lady. Thank you. Sorry. I don't know how well you're going to be able to see what I've got up on the visualizer. But what I have is the old standard and the new standard. The old standard was passed in t996. And like Ron said, you can see this area here, it still has the compact parking on it, so I guess we'll have to take that off, because we've done away with compact parking. Under the logic that there used to be compact cars, but everybody is buying SUVs and larger vehicles, larger vehicles using the compact spaces, but you've heard that before. The other items that I think they are objecting to, if you look at the very first area here, we had a detail that allowed you to have a 16-foot -- our standard parking space is 18 foot, but we allow 16 foot to the face of the curb or to the wheel stop, which allows some overhang. Now, the 18 foot is measured asphalt, and the wheel stop is usually held two feet back from the edge of the asphalt. Well, this detail allows you to put a curb and a sidewalk and run your wheel right up to the edge of the curb and overhang the sidewalk. What you get when that happens, and I've taken some pictures, this is a standard six-foot folding rule, open to two feet. This is not even that much -- usually you would find the wheel stop here at the two-foot mark. This wheel stop is two foot, six inches back. The vehicle, if you look, still overhangs the sidewalk substantially. Now, you're going to hear that most vehicles pull forward into parking spaces. We've got vehicles in our parking lot that have a three-foot five-inch front overhang. So they do overhang the sidewalk quite a bit. We consider this an impediment to the Page 23 May 17, 2000 Handicap Code. We consider it an impediment to pedestrians. If you look, this vehicle is pulled up against the bumper, and it still overhangs the sidewalk substantially. This vehicle, same problem. Same problem. I'm not getting these pictures quite right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And I notice they're all county vehicles. They're all parking illegally. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, this is not a county vehicle here. You have other type vehicles. This vehicle is pulled forward and you still have a slight overhang. Actually, it's -- you will notice that a lot of them are county vehicles, because it's difficult to go out in the middle of the day and wait for a vehicle to pull into one of these spaces, so you drive around in a county vehicle that's got, say, a three-foot overhang, like a Buick Century. Common car. We've got pickups with four-foot rear overhangs, we can use those, too. The problem is the public has the same thing. They drive those same vehicles. Some of them are not as good a driver as others. They do pull -- some pull forward into parking spaces. I've been in places where most of the people are backed in. We have problems with vehicles overhanging onto sidewalks. Different sidewalks, same problem. Okay, we consider that something worthy of resolution. So what we've decided is if you have a 16-foot parking space up against the curb, we want an eight-foot sidewalk behind you. That way, if you are in a vehicle that has a four-foot overhang, we still have four foot of sidewalk, which is enough for a handicap person to come down with a wheelchair or somebody to come by with a bicycle or a -- three foot is sort of narrow. And especially when it's a five-foot sidewalk with four foot of overhang, that's totally unacceptable to us. Now, other people might disagree. The next part of the detail, we had an 18-foot asphalt with the wheel stop two foot back from the asphalt. If you'll look at the Section AA up here, you have from the face of the wheel stop to the face of the curb, you have two foot. The old detail allowed you two foot, eight inches to the edge of a -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Start, slide your paper down a little bit. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Sorry, down instead of up. Thank you. Two foot from the face of the wheel stop to the face of the curb. And then we allowed you two-foot eight-inch minimum, Page 24 May 17, 2000 figuring an eight-inch curb to the face of the sidewalk. And then the sidewalk was allowed to be a three-foot sidewalk. Now, if you totaled that up, that's two foot plus two foot-eight plus three foot is seven foot, eight inches. The new detail calls for four foot from the face of the wheel stop to the face of the curb -- or to the face of the sidewalk and a four-foot sidewalk. That's eight foot zero. The difference between seven foot eight inches and eight foot zero, we do not consider serious enough to change this ordinance, to change the new standard. We have -- under the old standard I guess we never noticed this before, but a handicap ramp is a 12 to I slope. Well, that 12 to I slope on a six-inch curb needs six foot. We didn't have six foot, we had less than six foot. So this solves that problem, too. You can actually get around the handicap ramps without going down and back up, which is a safety hazard. The -- if you choose not to put in this grass strip -- I think one reason we had the old grass strip so wide is because a narrow grass strip tends to die. So we figured we'd give it a little better chance to live by making it a little wider. Now I think we're more worried about safety. If you prefer not to put in the grass strip, you can put in a six-foot sidewalk under the new detail. I think you could do that under the old one. So that part of what we've done we think is correct up to there. Now, that covers this area, that covers this area. If anybody has any questions about that before we move on to the landscape part, maybe we should start there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Stan, you're saying that you want to reject what's in our packet and insert this. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, what's under old standards is what we did away with. We don't -- staff -- DSAC, the Development Services Advisory Committee, thought we were taking too much land, so they decided they wanted to go back to the old standards, told us to go back to the new -- old standards in lieu of our new standards. We want to keep the new standards. They want us to go back to the old ones. They want their couple of feet of land back, and they think they're entitled to it, I guess. I don't know. But we're here because we don't support the old standards, we support the new ones. Page 25 May '17, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Which is what you have on record right -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Which is what we have already. MR. NINO: If you agree with Stan, then there's no need for an amendment. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, there's one other item. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's hear it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So we're supposed to -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And that's way on the right side of the page here. And there was no standard here above that. What we've seen and what we don't like, and you see a lot in an industrial area, is in an industrial area is we allow a five-foot buffer, and you're allowed to overhang into the buffer. But you -- a lot of these vehicles in the industrial area are fairly large vehicles, pickups and whatever, and they do have four-foot rear overhangs into a five-foot buffer. That's not good for the vegetation. So we get conditions like this. Again, county vehicle, you can't see the symbol, though. That vegetation was knocked over, you can't really see it good, by whatever vehicle parked there. And you can see the other vehicles, they stop back a little from the wheel stops. They know they have to do that. Same thing. We've got some conflict here. We've got some conflict here. County vehicle, but the ones behind it are not. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, Stan, I thought you answered me earlier that this county vehicle is for demonstration purposes only. We're not breaking every law in the book, it's just for demonstration. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I will not bring that up again. None of these are county vehicles. What we have is -- okay, same case. And this is a Lincoln Town Car. Just picked it out because it's got a three and a half foot rear overhang. Standard six-foot folding rule. Unfolded to three and a half foot. You notice this gentleman knows enough not to pull back to the wheel stop. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Very nice. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Some people don't know that. They pull back to the wheel stop because they figure that's what the wheel stop is for, to stop the wheel as you pull back. That's a Page 26 May 17, 2000 Toyota pickup. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: My front end is still sticking out in the middle of the street. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, you have too big of a vehicle. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Now, wait, wait, that's yet to come. That's yet to come. I'm getting ahead. That's a Toyota pickup, three and a half foot overhang. That's a Chevy pickup, three and a half foot overhang. Just stuck the ruler up for no reason. This vehicle, you see when you have a very small front overhang, the vehicle tends to overhang a lot in the back, because the front overhang is short because they held the wheels so close to the front, which forces the back of the vehicle very far out. So those are the reasons that we're doing what we're doing. And if you have any questions about it, I'm sure I'll be glad to answer them. And Jeff Purse is about to tell you that the vegetation is dying because of lack of maintenance. But if you stress vegetation due to lack of maintenance and then you drive on top of it and you have your hot mufflers touching it, it's going to damage it even worse. And if you look around, yeah, there's a lot of wealth of vegetation in this town, but there's a lot of it that's dying. So -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- this is our solution for it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to be perfectly clear. What you've just shown us up there allegedly is what's in front of me in my packet? It certainly doesn't look the same to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not the one that assembled the packet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's Page 70, I think. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes, Page 70 and Page 71. You had a lot more information because you're doing a presentation. What we -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- have is a condensed version, I"m sure. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But what you have in our packet, this Page 27 May t7, 2000 is -- the one with the "X" through it is presently what's in force that they don't like. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The one without the "X" is the one that they want to go back to that was the one from before. Without the -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Now, that doesn't make sense to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- contact part. What? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The one they want to go back to from before. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, is the one that allows the overhang onto the sidewalk and allows the overhang into the landscape area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So let me try one more time: You want the one with the "X" through it, Development Services wants the clean one, Page 71. You want page -- MR. NINO: Is that right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. If you look under reason: "To reverse the change that went into effect," because the proposed amendment will impact pedestrian access along sidewalks and the viability of landscaping," staff is not in favor of the amendment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So you want to stay with what's called current drawing, which would appear to be Page 70. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, we do. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So I'm supposed to reject what's in front of me, if I buy your arguments. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I hope so. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Stan, who is they? I guess I'm a little confused. They who? CHAIRMAN BUDD: They're sitting over here -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Who initiated this -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Jeff Purse is here -- MR. NINO: Community Development Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- committee? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Development Services Advisory Committee. MR. NINO: Development Services. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: At the urging of some of the local Page 28 May 17, 2000 developers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's hear from Mr. Purse to have an opposing point of view. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask Stan, wasn't -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, there's not only developers there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- there some point where you gave us an alternative between two approaches? Wasn't there somewhere in your presentation that you said you can do either/or, or that you like thus and so better than the other? Or yours is just to maintain the status quo? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, mine is just to maintain what we passed about six months ago, and not go back to what we passed three years ago in 19 -- four years ago in '96. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We don't need to modify it at all? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Purse. MR. PURSE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Purse with Purse Associates, and I'm here tonight I guess basically representing myself. I have a handout I'd like to give out, and then talk about it first, please. I will apologize to you that I am the instigator of this, because I was the one that went before the Development Services committee, once I found -- I was in a meeting for a project, and one of the county staff said, "Your parking spaces aren't big enough." I go, "What do you mean? They're 18 feet long." "They're not big enough." So I said what do you -- that can't be right. So I went and researched and sure enough, there's a new LDC code that says that I can't have an 18-foot space anymore. That is the problem I think of where we don't understand what the ordinance did. So I went to the Development Services, and I said, "Do you realize what you passed? You changed an 18-foot space to 20 feet, and you changed a 16-foot space to 20 feet." We have always designed for the last, I'll say, 15 years that we'd have an 18-foot space and a 16-foot space. The 16-foot space overhung Page 29 May 17, 2000 two feet, making it 18 feet. In the Landscaping Code you're allowed to hang over two feet into the landscaping. What this does, if you look at the pictures -- I just took these pictures in front of the Development Services building and behind the Development Services building. I didn't go out all over the community looking for different things. I just went to the county. And if you go to the county and you look at how the county parks, the problem isn't as prevalent as everybody wants it to be. So my problem I have is that in my designs -- and when we design, a lot of times we're not given enough room to put anything on there. So we have to fight for every inch of land we can get to actually put a building on, meet the landscape buffer, the sidewalk requirements. When you're at a -- and the handicap in front of the building. And the ADA requires a five-foot clear sidewalk in front of a building where you have the handicap. Now, where it's not going up for the handicap spot, you don't have to have that five feet. What has happened is that in one of the demonstrations, they show that you have -- yes, you can park a 16-foot space up against the curb. But we want you to allow four more feet for the car that's going to be there. But doesn't give a clear five foot beyond that. My problem is, is that when -- if you look at the last page -- or not the last page, I'm sorry, the next to the last page. I just drew this up. It says current Exhibit A. That is what the county wishes you to keep. Proposed Exhibit A is -- what I did is I put this on a planned view of what a parking lot really looks like when you design it, not just one side of it. What happens is that I lost four feet. The area reserved for parking is four feet wider than it was before. If you look at the property line, I have a property line, then I have either a five-foot landscape buffer or I have a 10-foot landscape buffer or I have a 15-foot landscape buffer, or I have a 20-foot landscape buffer. Then I have another two additional feet of green area. And then I start my parking space. It's not just the industrial area that this effects. This affects all areas. So what I'm saying is that the problem of the dying landscape is not the problem. Yes, I will admit that if you go in the industrial area, that the landscaping is deteriorating. But we have to come to some reasonable agreement that the cars are not killing the landscaping. If you go in an industrial area, you Page 30 May t 7, 2000 look at the front of the yard where no cars are near it, the landscape's dying. The cars are doing that, too. So I feel that what we had before, what we used before, was what we need to go back to. And I'll agree, maybe there needs to be some fine tuning of what we had before. But I don't think we have to give up four feet of the land to do it. And that is my whole concern is that when I go to my next design and I tell my client, well, you didn't buy enough land -- and this is happening in a lot of areas in the commercial parks, they're subdividing them into smaller lots and people come along and buy two and a half lots or two and a quarter lots, and then they come in and they don't have enough room. They didn't do their due diligence, their real true due diligence before they bought the land. They come in to the designer and he goes and lays out parking lot, building, parking lot. And when you put it all together, that's four feet on one side of the building and then another four feet on the other side of the building. That's eight feet you took from him. Plus you've still got all your landscaping and everything else. That is where the problem is. Now, there is a problem with cars overhanging the sidewalk. I agree with that. How many people here back into their parking space? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Sometimes. Sometimes. And the reason I do that is because I can't pull into it straight on, which is a function of too small of a parking lot. MR. PURSE: Well, see, pulling into a parking space is not -- making it longer isn't a thing -- a normal travel lane is 24 feet wide, and it's a nine-foot wide space. We used to have them 10. Years ago we changed them to nine. Normally when you pull into a parking space, we all do it, we swing wide, if we can, swing wide and go in. And on normal operation, unless you're driving a big -- you know, I'm not going -- you know, brand name F, 850 or whatever that's 30 feet long, we don't design for 30-foot long vehicles. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: He drives an 18-wheeler. That's why he can't fit. MR. PURSE: Well, if you look at overhangs, it's funny, an 18-yard dump truck has no rear overhang, so it could park in the Page 31 May 17, 2000 spot and not hurt the thing. But getting back to the real subject, is that because this was passed and it is now the code, we have to design to it. And I lose eight feet on either side of my building -- four feet on either side. I've lost eight feet of my land. I would like to go back to the original code. Let's go back and look at this again, of how we can clean it up to make it work for everybody, where we're not giving up eight feet of land. And then really, too, if you look at -- if you look at -- I'm not picking on particular places, but if you look at Costco, there's no bumper stops. It's just asphalt from one end to the other. Well, the county's not concerned that we run into each other, they're concerned that we hit a shrub or we hit a tree. Now, I'm an advocate for bumper stops in parking lots because I hate the -- what I call the Sebring slide. It's where you go into a parking lot and you see no bumper stops, and you see there's a space right by the door but you're four aisles away, and you go 45 miles an hour, crossing all those parking stalls. I call that the Sebring slide. And you do it at Sam's Club. How many times have you -- I've almost been hit a couple of times, people trying to speed across to get out to the exit. But this thing cau -- this particular ordinance causes too much of a design restraint, I feel, and that we need to go back to the old one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Purse? Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You must have been at the DSAC meeting when they discussed this at length? Were you in the land development subcommittee meeting, or were you at the full committee meeting? MR. PURSE: I went to the full board meeting and asked them, pleaded with them, to send it back to the committee, to send it back. Now, I did yesterday E-mail Dalas Disney, who is the -- I guess the -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Chair. MR. PURSE: -- chairman of that, wanting someone to be here to help me defend this thing. I don't want to be appeared as the protector of the parking lots. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, so there's a 15-member board over there. Did all 15 members support this? It doesn't Page 32 May 17, 2000 tell us on our summary sheet here. MR. PURSE: They did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because you've got at least one biologist over there and an environmental person over there. They were persuaded? MR. NINO: They were, yes. MR. PURSE: If you take the time to read the minutes of that, you will see verbiage like why did we do this, how did this get by us? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I spent quite a bit of my time on that committee. So that's why I was trying to clarify if you had a pretty unanimous opinion that they wanted what's before us versus the x'd out version. MR. PURSE: In my opinion, I would say there was a majority that agreed that this should go back, and -- now, I -- there again -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wait a minute. MR. PURSE: -- I left leaving it -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Time out. You said it should go back. I think DSAC is agreeing what's in front of us versus going back to the land development regulation subcommittee. It got to us with their initiating it, and the staff is not approving what's in front of us to approve. MR. PURSE: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are you telling us that it's supposed to go back? MR. PURSE: No. I'm sorry, because we're getting -- approve what you have in front of you is the change. Approve the change to the LDC, that's what I'm asking. And then, you know, I'm more than willing, you know, let's go back and retune this thing. But -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, just to be clear then, if we approve what's in front of us, we're going to go back to 18 foot and 16-foot parking spaces. MR. PURSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And right now it's 20 feet. MR. PURSE: Now it's 20 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I missed that, too. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I need Stan to answer that. Because I thought if you go with staff's recommendation, they're against the advisory board's recommendation, which is keeping what we have. That is staff Page 33 May 17, 2000 recommendation -- MR. NINO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- is that correct? MR. NINO: That's correct. Stan's and Jeff's position is that that -- they did in fact ask for a larger parking lot. And I'm not sure that that's really true. And perhaps we need to look at this more. But, you know, if you put that wheel stop three feet back -- I talked to Jeff in the office about this. If you put that wheel stop three feet back, then you're keeping 15 feet. And I suggest to you that 15 feet handles the average car. What's happening here is that in fact some of the trucks are indeed larger than 18 feet. And instead of sticking out into the 24-foot travel way, they're into the required green belt and sidewalk area. So what's wrong with the proposition that says let them stick out in the 24-foot aisleway width as opposed to -- as opposed to damaging the integrity of the sidewalk in the landscape buffer? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Ron, it seems to me that we're ill equipped to carry on this philosophical debate here. What this gentleman is suggesting is a two-stop process. He wants to repeal what we have now, go back to what we had, and fine tune it. Well, it seems to me you can eliminate one of those steps by fine tuning what we have now, just by doing nothing. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The only time you're going to lose eight feet of space is the situation where you have a buffer and double loaded parking, the building, double loaded parking and a buffer. And that is not a common situation, except on the very large parcels. And the very large parcels can probably afford to lose eight feet. It's the ones in the industrial park. Granted, land is expensive. And, you know, we joke, we have a term called a blivit (phonetic). I learned it in the Army. It's 10 pounds of material in a five-pound back. And we get to see that a lot. They jam as much as they can onto a site and it's so tight that when they go to lay the thing out, if the building is a foot in the wrong place, a couple of inches in the wrong place, something else is a foot or a couple of inches in the wrong place. And you see that. And they come to us for assistance, because they say we can't get our 24-foot, our 18-foot, our 18-foot, but on the other Page 34 May 17, 2000 side we got plenty. So we say jack the building over, joking. You can't do that. The building is built~ we're stuck with it. We just want a little extra (**)slough in there. And I'm sure you all have seen it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Purse. You did say in your presentation that when the vehicles overhang over the sidewalk, you do have a problem with that. What's your solution if we don't go with staff's recommendation? Because it's obviously a problem and you're acknowledging that problem. MR. PURSE: The problem is that you would give -- and I give the example of the 16-foot space next to the concrete. The staff wants an eight-foot sidewalk, and what I'm saying, there could be a -- and right now on the other side you could have six feet with a two-foot overhang, which is what they have on the other side, and one that's not a 16-foot space. There's got to be -- I don't want to see eight foot -- on one design I did for a restaurant, they had a seven-foot space -- a seven-foot sidewalk. You can have a six-foot sidewalk, which would -- what I'm saying is that if you look at -- even at these pictures, if you look at the thing that overall two-foot overhang is what we've always had and what we've always agreed to. And no matter what we do, no matter how we're going to do it, we're still going to have problems with the big vehicles. But we have never designed for the worst case. That has never been what has been the driving force. We never design for a Class V hurricane, we don't design for, you know, a 300-year event. We don't design for those things. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I agree with you to a certain point. A few years back compact cars were very common. But nowadays, as staff mentioned, and we all know, that the SUVs are the most common vehicles out there. And that seems to be where the problem is. I know we didn't design in the past for a Class V hurricane, but we're designing more and more in that direction, based on what we've seen lately. MR. PURSE: Well, I drive an SUV. I'm one of the guilty parties. But if you also look of how people drive, the habits they have when they drive, we all have different habits. Some of us pull all the way up to the bumper stop, right. It's like a straw Page 35 May 17, 2000 that tells people when you've reached bottom, okay? I don't hit the bumper stop in most cases. Sometimes I will, sometimes I won't. I never back in. I don't have anything to hide. My feeling, when you're backing in, you're hiding your license plate. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Not necessarily, Jeff. One last comment. How long has this new ordinance been in force, the one that -- MR. PURSE: Five months. Five, six months. Now, I'm not the only one. I mean, I've gotten -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You're the only one here tonight. MR. PURSE: I know. And I don't mean to be, you know, the advocate of the thing. I'm going to be the one that takes all the punishment for it. But this is the ordinance. I've been here in town for 27 years. This is the first time I've gotten up and spoken against an ordinance. And this is the one that broke the camel's back. This is the straw. This is the line in the sand I'm not going to cross anymore. This is the one that did it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But it seems to me when that ordinance was adopted five months ago, yourself and your colleagues that has a problem with it, that's when you should have voiced your opinion and went against it, not now. MR. PURSE: A lot of times -- like I said, I apologize, because I didn't know the ordinance came in effect. I don't follow the day-to-day operations of the internal LDC changes. What happened was that the changes were made, and it didn't affect me until about four months later. The second I found out about it, I did something about it. That was the thing. But that won't happen again. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But that means that from the DSAC group that I just got off of last December, we missed it. MR. PURSE: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The group that reviewed this completely missed it. And I think what you're telling me is you want us to vote for what's in front of us now, correct? MR. PURSE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments? Anyone else from the public to address this item? Do we have a motion? Page 36 May t7, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a disagreement between the planning staff and this committee that forwarded this. I would like to leave it as it is and let those two groups iron it out between the two of them. There's no sense changing this with the prospect of having to replay this drama again in the next cycle. So I make a motion to accept the staff's recommendation and maintain the status quo and reject the proposed change. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Saadeh. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. The motion carries. I was in opposition of the motion. It was 3-2, motion carries. MR. NINO: 4-2 or 3-2? CHAIRMAN BUDD: 3-2. MR. NINO: There's six of you there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio and I were in opposition. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. NINO: That's 4-2. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: That would be 4-2. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, I can't count. 4-2. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: How many buildings you put up? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah. Any other items, Ron? MR. NINO: I don't have any other items, unless you want -- there are other items you want to discuss. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have no other items, no other speakers from the public. MR. NINO: Therefore, I suggest that you adopt the amendments and their consolidated -- the consolidated amendment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a motion to that effect? Page 37 May 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET-' So moved. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 38